The Playground

    William
    June 2, 2016 at 4:15 PM
    Dear Dr. Rossi,


    According to this pressrelease IH lost their e-cat license


    http://ecat.com/news/pressrele…-license-for-rossis-e-cat


    Can you comment?


    Thank you.


    William


    Andrea Rossi
    June 2, 2016 at 4:30 PM
    William:
    Thank you for this important link with the press release issued today from my attorney John Annesser, Esq.
    We made this move to make clear a thing about which there has been a lot of confusion, because IH continues to make patent applications with my technology, using without my authorization my name as the inventor and the name of Industrial Heat as the assegnee. It must be clear and sound that Leonardo Corporation has terminated the license granted to Industrial Heat LLC in all the following Territories:
    North America, Central America, South America, the Caribbean, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and the Emirates.
    This press release of our Attorney is clear and straight to the point.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.


    -----------------------------------------------------


    No more IP from IH, or more law suits are coming IH's way.

    Quote from stephenrenzz

    I don't blame Thomas at all. Whether people agree or disagree with his contributions, they were indeed VERY valuable to this forum as well as the field. This is just yet another example of why the mainstream science community wants nothing to do with LENR and associated individuals. Definitely a significant loss.


    this Forum and the collection of users here, from time to time, includes people who are part of the Condensed Matter Nuclear Science community, but this certainly does not represent LENR, and what Thomas faced did not come from the LENR community, it came from what I'd call a Rossi fan base, which sometimes is loosely interested in real LENR, but mostly is ignorant and outside of that conversation. As I mentioned, there are exceptions. An overlap can be found with MFMP participants which often participate in fora like this, being mostly amateurs, and often young. Most of the scientists in the field will be very rarely seen in places like this, if ever.


    Nor would I see some of those people who think they are advocating science, i.e., "mainstream science," whatever that is. They will claim belief in it or adherence to it, but do not participate in real science over LENR issues. It is mostly pseudoskepticism. They could not get published in any serious journal under peer review.


    Thomas appeared to be a genuine skeptic, which all sciences need. He raised real issues, not phony ones or irrelevancies like Krivit's oft-repeated "convicted felon." Krivit also called the founder of Energetics Technologies a "quack doctor," which is, ah, a gross misrepresentation of Irving Dardik. Pseudoskeptics and yellow journalists like Krivit reduce complex stories to sound bites. Clarke actually did work, studying the data. If he's incorrect, his work should, in turn, be critiqued, not rejected as if it was only motivated by rejection of Rossi, which I doubt that it was.


    His abrupt abandonment of this forum over being more precisely identified as a real life person, I think as a professor of electrical engineering, though I'm not sure, bothers me. Cold fusion does not need more anonymous experts. It needs analysis by people willing to stand behind what they write, as any scientist would. Clarke is not "in the field," but he wrote based on study, and it looked good. However, if a person is not willing to take the heat, I recommend they stay out of the kitchen.


    There are, indeed, serious problems with attacks on people who show interest in cold fusion. When I was active with cold fusion on Wikipedia, I had email from a man who was a skeptic. He was very worried that his comments would be identified with his person, because, he claimed, if it were known in his field that he had even given the time of day to cold fusion, his career would be toast.


    That is obviously worrisome! It's characteristic of the extreme rejection cascade that arose, roughly in 1990. Cold fusion was never shown, through the process of science, to be artifact. The rejection was really a rumor that took off and became "fact" without having an actual foundation. The 2004 U.S. DoE review, 18 neutral scientists, given a brief survey of the field, came surprisingly close to accepting cold fusion as nuclear in nature, considering how vehement is popular opinion among, especially, "nuclear physicists" would would believe that it is impossible. I call that popular opinion for two reasons:


    1. "Cold fusion" is undefined, the actual claim by Pons and Fleischmann was of an "unknown nuclear reaction." There was a huge amount of confusion, though, in 1989, over what they had found. Because it was believed that what they found "must be" deuterium fusion, there was an intense search for neutrons. But it was already completely obvious that if this was fusion, it was not the known d-d fusion. Somehow, reports finding no neutrons were part of the "evidence" on which "cold fusion" was rejected. But substantial neutrons were never claimed. Low levels were, and the Pons and Fleischmann neutron claims were artifact, from rushed work to see if they could detect neutrons as Jones had claimed.
    2. These physicists are not familiar with the experimental evidence, and the methods of cold fusion are generally outside of what physicists do. From what we now know, it is likely that the reaction converts deuterium to helium, without readily detectable radiation. The classic rare branch of d-d fusion that produces helium must have a gamma ray, it's required by conservation of momentum. So is this finding impossible?


    No. There may be other possible ways to convert deuterium to helium, and any process that does it, if there is no major energy leakage through radiation, will have the observed heat/helium ratio, by the laws of thermodynamics.


    I urge those who think that "mainstream science" rejects cold fusion to look at some sources. Start with http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/108/04/0495.pdf</a> -- Mckubre's excellent article on the state of evidence for LENR.


    Then look at a Wikversity page I put together some years back: https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Cold_fusion/Recent_sources

    That is a page with sources from 2005 and more recently. Peer-reviewed reviews are bolded. I count 20 of them through 2010.


    There are extremely few extremely skeptical articles on cold fusion appearing in journals over the last ten years, and, in fact, beyond the Letter of Kirk Shanahan to the Journal of Environmental Monitoring, which was a critique of a review, not a primary review, I don't know of any. Shanahan ended up sputtering that the journal editors did not let him respond to the author rebuttal. The tables have been turned. If there is difficulty accessing journals now, it is is more on the skeptical side.


    Major scientific publishers, including the two largest (Elsevier and Springer-Verlag) publish articles on cold fusion that don't contain warnings and disclaimers. Many reviews assume reality and then are looking at characteristics, common factors, starting to seek for explanations,

    Quote from Dewey Weaver

    It even held steady state on temps and pressures when it was turned off. I'm telling you - the world has never seen anything thing so great and wonderful.


    Without providing any kind of objective evidence for this assertion, it rings rather hollow. Let me guess: you are using Rossi's blog, with timestamped entries, and matching those up with data used to generate the ERV report?

    Quote from Hank Mills

    Dewey,


    Does the ERV report state that the 100.1 temperature was measured or was it a place holder?


    Rossi claims that the ERV disregarded temperatures below and above. If that is the case, the report is not claiming that the temperature held steady at 100.1.


    My guess is Dewey won't answer. I've asked him to clarify a number of times, but with crickets as an answer. He really enjoyed how much mileage he got from the implication within the community of it being a measured value though. I lost a little respect for Dewey by that whole episode.

    Axil - I'm glad that you were able to clean up and come back out to play. Were you with those guys today as they inspected the container and workspace in Miami? Funny that there was no mention of this new demand letter from Rossi's attorney when everyone was face-to-face just hours ago. What a completely unprofessional bunch of folks. Did you hear that Hank hired a new attorney for JM Products? I guess the restart letters from JM were not serious as Rossi has ripped all the plumbing and power out down there. Rossi was there the entire time - hope that QX test survived while he was gone. He must really trust whoever or whatever is watching over his newest baby.


    Following your lead, we can change to a different subject at your behest and try to get arms around your newest jag So you have lament that IH somehow mistreated Rossi after paying him $11.5M and patiently waited for him to transfer working IP AND prove that his big machine worked. Do you have ANY examples of this mistreatment? Of course Rossi must maintain the victim card so we expect a good answer from you.

    Quote from Paradigmnoia

    So, randombit0, you are avoiding a response?



    No Dear Paradigmoia I'm not avoiding any respose. Is you that had avoided many responses the fact that Alumina is partially transparent to IR was already evaluated in our laboratory. If you read my posts you will find it.
    But (as I'm trying to told you) the emissivity parameter have a low impact on the final measure of power emitted because it is cancelled in the calcolus.
    We have evaluated that the the maximum error is <30% . So does not harm the conclusion of the Lugano Report.

    Quote from Paradigmnoia

    The transmitted IR energy does not heat the alumina



    This my dear paradigmoia is nonsense or better to say very misleading.
    If you have a body made of different partially transparent materials then the total emissivity is a convolution of the two emissivities, that depend also on the thickness of the layers .

    Quote from Dewey Weaver

    I guess the restart letters from JM were not serious as Rossi has ripped all the plumbing and power out down there.


    Can you clarify what you mean by "restart letters"? I think it would be helpful to communicate clearly with the LENR community so as to avoid implications rippling around that perhaps are less than accurate of the underlying truth.


    And, how does one go about ripping out power? Was the transformer to the building ripped out and hauled away?

    IHFB - there are pictures from the 1st inspection day when it was discovered that Penon's test plan was only for a single reactor. IH engineering sent him back to the drawing board to rework his test plan for the actual number of reactors present. On day two (for which there are also pictures), the IH folks had a feeling they should get there early, like 6:30am, instead of the agreed upon 9:30am start time and arrived to find Rossi had been in el-destructo mode for hours. System drained, flowmeter boxed, etc...etc.... Do not fear - there are more pictures. The one of the pitifully low rust line on the flowmeter is going to really hurt. Not the behavior you'd expect from someone expecting to collect $89m for an honest years work. All very useful evidence now.

    Good IHFB good. Rossi fought like crazy to keep that box from being opened including ordering Fulvio to physically prevent the IH team from opening and taking pictures. The IH lawyer took over and the box was opened. We'll get to the serial number issues in front of the judge.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.